Couple's 8 month old child Brandon is now dead due to complications from pneumonia. They opted to pray rather than seek medical care. This is their 2nd child to suffer such a fate. Their 2-year old child, Kent, died in 2009 due to complications from pneumonia (again, opting to pray rather than seek medical care). The couple has been sentenced to 3.5-7 years in prison.

From the story:

Quote

The Schaibles are the rare couple to lose a second child that way. Their pastor, Nelson Clark, blamed Kent's death on a "spiritual lack" in the parents' lives, and insisted they would never seek medical care, even if another child was dying.

My questions, primarily for theists but open for all discussion:1) Should criminal charges be brought against paster Nelson Clark?2) Were the Schaibles, at the time of initially noticing Brandon's symptoms, acting morally or immorally when they made the choice to lean on faith healing the 2nd time around?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

We take away a person's freedom when their actions are proven to have caused severe harm or death to someone else. That should include religious freedom, as far as I'm concerned.

Again, this is why I think 'religion' should legally treated the same as 'community theater' A litmus test is, if your community theater said it would be wrong to get medical care for your child, how would the law treat it?

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Again, this is why I think 'religion' should legally treated the same as 'community theater' A litmus test is, if your community theater said it would be wrong to get medical care for your child, how would the law treat it?

If the community theater's leader said that it would be wrong to get medical care in such a situation, and a member of the troop caused the death of their child by withholding medical care, then would the leader be subject to criminal charges? Is there a legal precedent to allow the state to prosecute the community theater's leader with manslaughter or other criminal charge?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Again, this is why I think 'religion' should legally treated the same as 'community theater' A litmus test is, if your community theater said it would be wrong to get medical care for your child, how would the law treat it?

If the community theater's leader said that it would be wrong to get medical care in such a situation, and a member of the troop caused the death of their child by withholding medical care, then would the leader be subject to criminal charges? Is there a legal precedent to allow the state to prosecute the community theater's leader with manslaughter or other criminal charge?

Unless the parent was mentally damaged in some way, then it was their dumb decision. Just because they got bad advice from the director or member of their theater troop should be irrelevant. It was the parent's fault for listening to it.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Unless the parent was mentally damaged in some way, then it was their dumb decision. Just because they got bad advice from the director or member of their theater troop should be irrelevant. It was the parent's fault for listening to it.

And I contend that the required level of credulity necessary for a loving parent to listen to such bad advice would qualify as beyond stupid - that is, it is such a poor decision that it would be reasonable to assume that they suffered from a cognitive mental handicap that Pastor Clark knowingly exploited that directly resulted in the suffering and death of a child, and should therefore share part of the criminal guilt.

Of course, part of that stems from my personal desire to see that the pastor has some shared responsibility for this atrocity, so my statement really isn't more than an emotionally-charged opinion.

Instead, he said, the children died because of some "spiritual lack" in the Schaibles' lives - a flaw they need to correct to prevent future deaths.

I hate that. And it really is at the crux of all theist's belief in an omnipotent god.

That's part of why I really want Pastor Jack-hole to share some of the criminal responsibility.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

That's part of why I really want Pastor Jack-hole to share some of the criminal responsibility.

Agreed. He's definitely a huge part of the problem here.

Perhaps *he* should contract something potentially deadly but medically treatable. Either it will kill him, or he'll rush out to seek medical attention and his "flock" will abandon him and/or the "no medicine" rule. Win-win.

Unless the parent was mentally damaged in some way, then it was their dumb decision. Just because they got bad advice from the director or member of their theater troop should be irrelevant. It was the parent's fault for listening to it.

And I contend that the required level of credulity necessary for a loving parent to listen to such bad advice would qualify as beyond stupid - that is, it is such a poor decision that it would be reasonable to assume that they suffered from a cognitive mental handicap that Pastor Clark knowingly exploited that directly resulted in the suffering and death of a child, and should therefore share part of the criminal guilt.

When does it become your responsibility if you listen and accept stupid and verifiably wrong ideas? If you have an IQ above 70? When you are not on Psych meds? At what point is it no longer the man running the con game, but rather the person who flocks to him , the party at fault?

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And I contend that the required level of credulity necessary for a loving parent to listen to such bad advice would qualify as beyond stupid - that is, it is such a poor decision that it would be reasonable to assume that they suffered from a cognitive mental handicap that Pastor Clark knowingly exploited that directly resulted in the suffering and death of a child, and should therefore share part of the criminal guilt.

When does it become your responsibility if you listen and accept stupid and verifiably wrong ideas? If you have an IQ above 70? When you are not on Psych meds? At what point is it no longer the man running the con game, but rather the person who flocks to him , the party at fault?

One thing I want to make clear - I do not want to remove the moral and legal responsibility that the parents had in this scenario. I believe that they are guilty of a criminal transgression, but I feel that Pastor Nitwit shares some of that responsibility too.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Instead, he said, the children died because of some "spiritual lack" in the Schaibles' lives - a flaw they need to correct to prevent future deaths.

I hate that. And it really is at the crux of all theist's belief in an omnipotent god.

Quote

Herbert Schaible teaches seventh and eighth grade at the church school on Rising Sun Avenue, all subjects except faith. Only Clark teaches faith.

This throws me into teary eyed rage as well.

They must have a "spiritual lack"? It's the family's fault for your magic not working?!?

It seems to me that you are the family's only guide in matters of faith you mother f@#$$%!! If you truly believe this kid died because of his parents "spiritual lack". Then by your own magic rules isn't it your f@$#% fault for leaving them lacking! Did you think of it that way Mr. Clark?!

When does it become your responsibility if you listen and accept stupid and verifiably wrong ideas? If you have an IQ above 70? When you are not on Psych meds? At what point is it no longer the man running the con game, but rather the person who flocks to him , the party at fault?

It depends on whether they're stupid or helpless.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

My questions, primarily for theists but open for all discussion:1) Should criminal charges be brought against paster Nelson Clark?

Should, yes, can, no. It would have to be shown that (i) the pastor had mens rea (a guilty mind) prior to the time of the death and/or (ii) he should have known that ignoring a medical cure would more than likely result in death.

His defence on the first charge would be that he firmly believed that The Lord would cure the child.

His defence on the second would be that he had, on many occasions, seen people recover through prayer.

In both cases, he knows he is not a medically qualified person and the parents knew this as well. To overcome this, it would have to be shown that the pastor had undue influence over the parents: the parents are adults and sane. Both the pastor and the Church believe the same things, therefore the pastors opinion was no more than that.

Is the Church guilty? This has implications for the freedom of speech.

What is required is a law to state that all ill children should be taken to a doctor for an assessment. However, such a law would be hard to frame: it would either require a parent to be able to diagnose an illness or prevent a parent diagnosing a cold and would prevent emergency treatment. The alternative is to ban any claim to be able to heal other than by a doctor. I can't see that being a vote winner in the US.

Lynch mobs can be useful.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Should, yes, can, no. It would have to be shown that (i) the pastor had mens rea (a guilty mind) prior to the time of the death and/or (ii) he should have known that ignoring a medical cure would more than likely result in death.

His defence on the first charge would be that he firmly believed that The Lord would cure the child.

His defence on the second would be that he had, on many occasions, seen people recover through prayer.

In regards to the second defense:Is there any precedent to suggest that Pastor Clark would need to back up the claim of having seen prior occasion of witnessing relief of illness via prayer and faith? If we replaced 'The Lord' with 'Oz', would his second defense become less tenable?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."